Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockchain game

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blockchain#Uses. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Blockchain game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Vague rambling around a neologism rather than a common term found in RSes. This has never been a coherent article. It's also a spam magnet - this is the version culled of the worst spammy bad cites. (Previous version here.) Of the remaining four references, one is a marketing blog for a consultant firm, and two of the RS sources don't even mention the supposed genre. Declined PROD asserting notability of the neologism, but without providing evidence. David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the nomination rational focuses too much on the term "blockchain game" rather than the topic. Even if the term is a neologism that fails to appear in RSes, the concept of "Blockchains in gaming" could still be notable (I would be open to moving the page, but do not feel strongly either way). That said, I agree that the CNBC and Fortune sources are irrelevant. Both provide in-depth coverage of CryptoKitties, but more from the perspective of collectibles -- neither article discusses blockchain games generally. We certainly have not demonstrated notability. I'm having trouble finding nontrivial coverage in RSes, but would be open to reconsidering my position if someone else found some. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything on blockchain games other than Cryptokitties. I'd suggest merging it into Cryptokitties, but if there isn't anything in blockchain games other than Cryptokitties, it would just weigh down that article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it doesn't look like there's such a thing as a "blockchain game" as genre, like adventure game but blockchain technology is used in games.
  • GamesIndustry.biz: "Ubisoft, Fig, other companies form Blockchain Gaming Alliance" and "EON Foundation raises $5 million for blockchain game publishing"
  • Gamasutra: "Ubisoft details its blockchain-powered game HashCraft"
  • GameZebo: "Age of Rust is a forthcoming Enjin Coin-backed blockchain game with its own rental market"
  • US Gamer: "Blockchain and You: What Does Blockchain Even Do for Video Games?" soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can we get a second opinion to whether these sources are reliable? I am not familiar with gaming news. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are part of WP:VG/RS -- consensus vetted to be reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, WP:NUKE per WP:NEOLOGISM. This is not a standard term sources use, so the article title should not pretend to be. Something like aforementioned blockchains in video games would be appropriately neutral. It seems there are sources that discuss the concept sufficiently to pass the WP:GNG mark with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. My only concern is that such an article does not become an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of drive-by game mentions with no context. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll be an ill-cited example farm and spam magnet within minutes - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all that sound like "delete this article, start a different article". Which, fine - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I withdrew my !vote for deletion per the sources found by User:Soetermans. These articles do provide significant coverage, and the folks at WP:VG vouched for their reliability. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several blockchain games exist in the market. And we can google for it. Joeccho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeccho:, WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument. Also, your first edit is a keep vote. That's never a good sign. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:, Previously I participate in another language of wikipedia, and mostly participate anonymously. Joeccho (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As mentioned above, is a neologism and the page currently has nothing on what a "blockchain game" is. There may be uses of blockchain in games, but the content in the article right now is just about Cryptokitties. Either merge the content with Cryptokitties, or make a an article ABOUT blockchain in games, BUT blockchain games are not a thing. Application of blockchain IS a thing though. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). The technology itself are notable, but the name itself are not. Joeccho (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that different to "delete" and creating a new article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Blockchain#Uses, but create a section called Video games so it stands out in the table of contents. As more info is added, it can be forked out to a standalone article. Right now there's just not enough - so WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.